neurogenesis__describe_agent

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It states a read operation but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, has side effects, or what 'capabilities' entail. Minimal behavioral information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short but opens with a dense, cryptic prefix ('[neurogenesis — developmental agents...]') that may confuse agents. The core instruction 'Return capabilities and input contract' is clear but could be more direct.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description must fully explain the tool's behavior. It fails to define 'capabilities' or 'input contract,' leaving significant ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it returns 'capabilities and input contract,' which indicates a read operation. However, it does not specify which agent it describes (e.g., current or specific). The cryptic prefix adds noise without clarifying the tool's exact role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling `describe_agent` tools in other namespaces (e.g., notary, offsets). It lacks context about the agent being described or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.